The relationship between craft, design, art and technology

Durability

Durability is an aspect of product design, especially in relation to industrial products. Koskennurmi-Sivonen and Anttila (2008) align durability with product quality. Durability is a result of design, technique and materials, as well as other product properties, such as style and basic functionality. Naturally, the materials and techniques used in the process all contribute to physical durability (e.g. Taylor 1993;

Sherburne 2009). Physical durability is one of the most important factors in crafted products, for example, the kinds of structures used in building houses or the technical properties of textiles (see Kaasinen 2014; Lindfors 2002).

In addition to the physical order of materials and techniques, including natural and manipulated structures, durability is also related to emotions. Chapman (2009) divides emotionally durable frameworks for design into six points: narrative, detachment, surface, attachment, enchantment, consciousness. For example, most e-waste (i.e.

electronics waste) still functions in a utilitarian sense, but it may not be emotionally durable anymore. This could be prevented by paying attention to the design.

However, Fletcher (2016, 183) believes that things are durable as long as people want them to last, but the materials, design and construction are supported by the social systems that dictate the usage of things. Fletcher (ibid.) links durability to sustainability, fashion system of consumption and obsolescence, material and garment durability, emotional durability, investigation of the social durability of the object, and extended usership. The various aspects of durability are balanced between physical durability, the longevity of materials and their construction, and the emotional characteristics of the shared social systems.

In conclusion, there are many reasons why objects are desirable to us. They respond to our needs and desires on a personal, social and even a cosmic level, as stated by Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981, 38). An artefact is satisfying from a creational, material, emotional and even a social perspective (Niinimäki 2011;

Pöllänen 2015b; Groth 2017). Today, when products are generally mass produced, this relationship is challenged by the perceived and planned obsolescence created by market forces (Walker 1989; Papanek 1995; Leonard 2007). The competitive advantage of crafted products is their uniqueness and the deeply meaningful stories behind them (Luutonen 2007b).

complicated concept as craft. Design is action, it is form and functionality, but relates to many fields of industry, for example, graphic design, architecture, engineering, and even health and social sciences; it is everywhere (Ihatsu 2002; Belaram 2010; Kimbell 2012). Papanek (1984/1992, 4) defines design as a conscious and intuitive effort to impose meaningful order. However, what is considered design is decided by the design world, those involved in design (Walker 1989, 32).

Fry (2009, viii) extends the concept further to include all humans as designers (also Papanek 1973, 21), yet only some of us develop and use this ability as a source of employment. We all design and alter our surroundings. We are intrigued by symmetrical and asymmetrical natural formations and sequences such as snowflakes or stem-and-leaf ratios (Papanek 1973). Also, humans are not considered to be the only designers because designs can be created by other forms of life as well (cf. Rolston III 2003; Siipi 2008).

Art, as an artefact, a performance or even an art world, is connected to aesthetics, the shapes, colours, forms are all satisfying to the senses (Ihatsu 2002; Focosi 2016).

Greenhalgh (2002, 13) emphasises that art is actually the relationships between people and objects. Similarly, Risatti (2007) elaborates on the liberation of fine arts from the material and functionality of craft and attaches it to symbolism. Art is communicated through symbols, signs or behaviour and these have socially constructed meanings.

What can be considered as art is normative and therefore also compelled by anti-art that aims to shock and cause a reaction. Currently, there is great variation in arts (Focosi 2016).

Craft and fine arts have had the same elements of practice (skills, knowledge, technique, materials), yet contemporary fine art can be created without such intrinsic elements (Risatti 2007). For Dissanayake (2003), art is something that is deeply human. According to its original “definition”, art is closely related to craft and human behaviour in play and ceremonial rituals, and is furthermore connected to feelings.

Adamson (2007, 9 –13) sees craft as being supplemental to art. While Shiner (2012, 237–238) sees function as the focus of studio crafts and the aesthetics of art-craft, a combination of the two are rare pieces destined for exhibitions. Yet they were once a standard procedure in craft production in a historical context and should initially be considered as being essential parts of craft practice.

Greenhalgh (2002) shows competition between design, craft and art. He (ibid.) defines craft as being interconnected and stresses that we should not focus too much on the definition. After all, the urge of creative making whether it is arts, design or craft, is all the same (ibid, 4). Ihatsu (2002, 57) also reconciles these differences and draws orientations between conventional craft, art-craft and craft-design through a literary presentation of the concept of craft (see Figure 5). Conventional craft called ordinary craft, is the basis of craft. The two dimensions that derive from conventional craft are craft-design and art-craft. Craft-design is moving towards industrial design, with its emphasis on function and service. Technology and rationality are major activators of craft making. Art-craft, on the other hand, is based more on free expression, intuition and imagination and leans towards fine arts and the avant-garde. In conclusion, contemporary craft can be defined as a triangle of art-craft, design-craft and ordinary craft.

Figure 5. The world of contemporary craft and its two dimensions (Ihatsu 1998, 156; 2002, 57).

Nugraha (2012, 176) places these three ‘siblings’ (art-craft-design) in a pyramid with mass production – the competitor of unique one-piece art and craft production and design that echoes mass production (see Figure 6). At the centre of the model is the product or the artefact that is surrounded by the elements that modify it. Nugraha (ibid.) presents the ATUMICS tool for designers, an acronym for Artefact, Technique, Utility, Materials, Icon, Concept, and Shape. Technique is not simply the skills required for crafting but also the knowledge thereof, and the tools used in the process. Utility refers to the use, purpose, need and functionality of an object. Materials are either traditional or new, and as long as the materials are used appropriately, their functional and material properties are considered. The icon signifies the sign and symbol of the object that gives it meaning, this being decorative motifs or colours that have cultural significance. The concept means hidden factors, including cultural representation such as norms, beliefs, emotions, feelings and values. The shape is the form, performance, visual and physical properties of the object. All the above works on a micro level of the object, presenting the properties of the product. The method draws motivation from the social, cultural, economic, ecological, self-expressive and survival elements of the maker.

AARRTT

One piece

CCRRAAFFTT

D DEESSIIGGNN

Limited number of production

Mass-production

AA

Self expression

Cultural

Economic Ecological

Social Survival

Motivation elements

AA

AATTUUMMIICCSSMethod S

C I

T U

M C

I

M

U T

S

AAartefact, TT technique, UUutility, MMmaterial, II icon, CC concept, SS shape Figure 6. ATUMICS model (Nugraha 2012, 176).

According to Burns et al. (2012), craft is rooted in tradition, materials and authenticity, but the changes in craft practice can be attributed to digital technology and environmental and ethical concerns. Technology refers to the means of making or practice developed by people (Dormer 1997a, 7). As Varto (2001, 113) states, techno derives from techné – the skill, and –logy comes from logos (word, speech, language;

expression, conclusion; thought, thinking, reason, logic, science (Koukkunen, Hosia

& Keränen 2008)). The word tekhnologia is Greek and means systematic treatment (Oxford Dictionaries). Parikka (2003) distinguishes technique as the tools or practice required to produce products, and technology as scientific theories, processes and products, technical performance, technical terms and materials in addition to the qualities of technique.

Contemporary craft is also seen to compete with technology, mass production, and fast fashion (Dormer 1997b; 1997c; Fletcher 2008; Metsärinne & Kallio 2014). However, technology is not only perceived as being the opposite of craft, it is also a part of craft, especially in craft education (Hast 2011). Parkko (2016) adds technology to the traditional division of the three siblings: art, craft and design. In her study (ibid.), technology was a tool for marketing and information distribution, but also for design.

Nowadays, craft is shared and communicated, for example, through internet blogs, and has different meanings to craft makers (Kröger 2003; Gauntlett 2011; Na 2012;

Vartiainen 2010; Pöllänen & Voutilainen 2017; Vilhunen 2018).

Basic craft skills can be gained through online knowledge seeking and the reflection process can be documented in blogs, for example (Vilhunen 2018; cf. Anttila 1993).

This is a huge cultural change as we no longer live in communities and generations do

not live under the same roof, which is how knowledge used to be shared (cf. Papanek 1995). The community is now online (see Vilhunen 2018; Pöllänen & Pöllänen 2019), for example, Vartiainen (2010) opened her study with live role playing or Kröger (2003) studied the virtual platform for craft education. We now live in communities in which we search for information and find results from all over the world in a matter of seconds. At times, the virtual community can provide the social and technical support that would not be available face to face because of time constraints and inconvenience (Pöllänen & Voutilainen 2017). Thus, technology has its advantages for craft making (Suojanen 2001) and should not be placed in opposition to craft but alongside it, as programming and crafting processes are similar (Gauntlett 2011). Pöllänen and Pöllänen (2019) argue that craft precedes computational thinking and therefore acts as a foundation for understanding technology.

In sum, there are cultural nuances in the relationship between art, craft and design. Ihatsu (2002) viewed the differences in craft, design and art in Finland, Britain and North America through literary sources and found that Finnish craft is more conventional and lean towards design, whereas British craft balance between design and art, and American craft is more avant-garde and based on art. Botnik and Raja (2011, 43) consider the appreciation of craft perceived as lowly hand work in developing countries and as valued works of art in the developed countries. This presents a conflict in reconciling sustainability in crafts. How can we safeguard something we do not value?

In this study, when craft is mentioned it already includes aspects of design and art because of their varied foundations and conceptions, as argued above. However, when the emphasis is either on design or art, the terms used will be in accordance with the emphasis (i.e. art-craft or craft-design). Also, technology is accepted as a part of contemporary craft. However, this study does not take a stand regarding the level at which craft is considered to be handmade or technology assisted. Some technologies speed up the process of making, for example, using a belt sander or a sewing machine (see also Dormer 1997b; 1997c).